KULDIP SINGH, J. - (1.) SPECIAL leave granted in both the petitions.
(2.) R . Ramanathan and G. Jothisankar were detained under Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot -leggers, Drug -offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act, 1982 (the Act). The orders of detention were passed in respect of both the detenus by the District Magistrate, Thanjavur under the Act. The detenus challenged the detention by way of habeas corpus petitions before the Tamil Nadu High Court. By a common judgment dated February 5, 1992, the High Court allowed both the petitions and quashed the detention orders. These appeals, by way of special leave petitions, are by the State of Tamil Nadu against the judgment of the High Court.
(3.) BOTH the detenus were reported in the records of the District Magistrate as habitual criminals having history -sheet of committing various crimes. The occurrence which has been made the ground -case in the detention orders, is alleged to have taken place on November 25, 1991 at 3.00 p.m. It is not necessary for us to go into details of the said occurrence, suffice it to say that the detenus allegedly committed violent crimes, in a crowded locality against the police personnel and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Both the detenus were detained on the basis of the same ground -case. The detenus challenged the orders of detention before the High Court inter alia on the following ground : - "The relevant and vital documents, namely, the telegrams sent on behalf of the detenus to the police authorities, the Chief Minister, the High Court and other authorities wherein it was complained that the detenus were taken in police custody at 11.00 a.m. on November 25, 1991, were neither placed before the detaining authority nor the copies of the said telegrams were supplied to the detenus in spite of the request in that respect made by them in their representations. The detenion order was thus vitiated for non -consideration of vital documents and non -application of mind." According to the detenus the telegrams were sent to various authorities including the District Magistrate, Thanjavur wherein it was complained that the detenus were taken by the police to the Thanjavur West Police Station at 11.00 a.m. on November 25, 1991 and were being kept in police custody illegally. The ground of detention while narrating the occurrence of the ground -case specifically stated that the said occurrence took place at 3.00 p.m. on November 25,1991 and the detenus were arrested by the police thereafter. According to the High Court if the contents of the telegrams to the effect that the detenus were taken in police custody at 11.00 a.m. are correct, then the detenus could not have participated in any occurrence at 3.00 p.m. on the same day. The High Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the telegrams sent on behalf of the detenus were relevant and vital material which should have been placed before the detaining authority. Since the grounds of detention did not disclose that the District Magistrate had taken the telegrams into consideration, the detention was vitiated. The High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the detention on this short ground.;